PDA

View Full Version : Convince me to play Warhammer... or not...



Davien
09-04-2008, 00:55
Hello Warseers

If you've read my other thread "What should my first army be?" then you'll know my story.

For those that haven't, I am a relatively new player of Games Workshop battlegames, however I have been collecting White Dwarfs for many a year now (my earliest is somewhere around the 130th issue mark, however I have a consecutive thing running from issue 320 or so)

I now really want to choose an army and play it but I have a problem: I can't decide which game to play!? Fantasy or 40K, I just can't decide...

I have played demo games of both at a Games Workshop store, so I don't really have a playstyle as of yet. One of the staff told me to collect 40K because it is simpler and the models are easier to paint. However Warhammer Fantasy is more realistic with the Movement distances, etc

Can someone help me decide please???

larabic
09-04-2008, 01:08
I like to think of Fantasy as chess and 40k as checkers. Both good games but i find more thought is put into a fantast game and the players are a bit more mature... 40kk seems to attract the power gammers that want to win at all costs.....fantasy has some of those too but they are far fewer and tend to be ridaculed more ;)

Dark_Mage99
09-04-2008, 01:08
Well, it's ultimately down to what you will enjoy more. On a very basic level, what sounds more appealing:

- Troops firing futuristic guns, with tanks rolling in the distance.

- Troops firing bows, weaving magic with dragons flying overhead.

J.P. Biff
09-04-2008, 01:35
I like to think of Fantasy as chess and 40k as checkers.

ooooooo I like that analogy. I'm gonna use that one. Good call. :D

TheDarkDuke
09-04-2008, 01:44
I won't vote, but play Daemons, base them on the square bases and buy both 40k and fantasy books, boom 1 set of models for both systems!

Tarliyn
09-04-2008, 01:50
I would recommend fantasy, but 40k does have a new book coming out soonish and hopefully that will make 40k more tatical than it currently is (I can hope at least)

but yeah right now fantasy is a much smarter game and I enjoy it much more than 40k

Lordmonkey
09-04-2008, 01:55
The results of the poll are going to be very biased, since you've posted in the Fantasy boards :p

Play fantasy. It's a far more rewarding game in terms of painting and strategy. Some say that 40k is more 'fun', but it depends on what you want out of a game. 40k can be very Rock-Paper-Scissors, whereas fantasy is less about what you take to the game, and more about how you use it.

senorcardgage
09-04-2008, 02:07
The results of the poll are going to be very biased, since you've posted in the Fantasy boards :p


I was just about to say that. As many people have been saying, Fantasy is a more elaborate game than 40k, but come on, who are we kidding here? It's not like either game is really rocket-surgery.

By the way Lordmonkey, I like how you post whether or not your games were 'fun' or not; as opposed to just whether you won or not!! Didn't think there were many players like that any more!

Lordmonkey
09-04-2008, 02:23
By the way Lordmonkey, I like how you post whether or not your games were 'fun' or not; as opposed to just whether you won or not!! Didn't think there were many players like that any more!

Thanks! :D

Davien
09-04-2008, 02:28
[QUOTE=Lordmonkey;2507861]The results of the poll are going to be very biased, since you've posted in the Fantasy boards :p[QUOTE]

Sorry! I didn't know where else to put it (I couldn't see a "General Talk-About-Anything-Here Forum!)

Nephilim of Sin
09-04-2008, 02:47
Well, luckily a lot of the players here either play both systems, or have played them both at one time.

On a personal note, I love the imagery of 40k. I love the tanks, I love the models, but I no longer love the game.

Fantasy just has a lot more for myself, tactically, then 40k did. I love magic, dragons, and ranked up troops. Don't get me wrong, I still have a few sizable 40k armies (6k of DE), but even when I was loving 40k I was buying more fantasy.

However, it might be easier to find 40k players than it is for fantasy. I could rarely find enough people that played fantasy, so ultimately I collected the armies based on the models I liked.

TheSanityAssassin
09-04-2008, 03:07
As a long time 40k player who is just stepping into Fantasy, I would definitely say to go towards the Fantasy system, so long as there's players available in the region. If you're looking for a tactical, movement based system, it's really your best option. It's also currently got a stable rule set that isn't going anywhere for a while. I'd warn off anyone looking to start 40k to wait until 5th edition comes out before making any choices.

That said, I find 40k is a lot better suited for playing a "for fun for the hell of it" kind of game, where you sit and chat with friends, have a pint or two and and just enjoy blowing stuff up. Though I suppose that depends largely on the players of each system in the region how competitive they are. Our region is home to the Canadian WFB Hall of Heroes champion, where as our 40k players are mostly interested in group matches and Apocalypse.

DigbyWeapon
09-04-2008, 07:33
Imo, there is more time, patience and love put into Warhammer fantasy then 40k. I think that you should have a look at both types and they're armies. Don't make a choice before you have tried most of both.
But just keep in mind that Warhammer in general is very expensive, but ultimately rewarding so no matter what you're choice its going to be a good one.
Good luck mate

Digby

Tiamat
09-04-2008, 08:52
I like that suggestion of getting daemons, you can have one collection for both games then.

Failing that, think about the kind of TV you watch.
Did you prefer 13th Warrior, or do you keep watching Starship Troopers (not Starship troopers 2, I'd call it crap, but there's lumps of crap out there that would take offense to the comparison).
The Sharpe movies or Star Trek.
Conan the Barbarian or Gundam Wing (this is a tough one for me).

If you can't decide from the rules, decide which genre appeals to you most, squigz'n'stormbolterz sci-fi or sword swinging fantasy, and then go with that.

[Provehito in Altum]
09-04-2008, 09:10
40k is easier to learn for beginners to wargaming. So if you play 40k first, you'll learn it quickly, then you can soon move to Fantasy and the tougher rules will be easier to handle.

If you start with Fantasy first, just keep at it and don't become disheartened, you'll get it! Once you've gotten the rules down, 40k will seem very easy by comparison. (Oh, so no matter the distance and type of weapon, my shooting still hits you on the unmodified score of my ballistic skill? Cool!)

For me, Fantasy is more about strategy and 40k is more about tactics, if that makes sense. 40k will generally be more forgiving if mistakes are made. Being effective relies a lot on your army composition and how you manuever during the game. Fantasy is very unforgiving when it comes to mistakes. If you even set up your army poorly, you can lose the game solely on this mistake. With very strict line of sight and movement restrictions, it requires much more fore-thought and planning to set up attacks and traps. Fantasy also has a bigger emphasis on hero/lord characters, i.e. an uber killy/magicky lord can make a HUGE difference in whether you win or lose a game, whereas in 40k the characters aren't quite as dominant.

Weldo Rubin
09-04-2008, 14:31
I voted for Fantasy. I've heard that there is more diversity in the armies used by Fantasy players than in 40.000 (sorry if it has already been mentioned).

Pacific
09-04-2008, 16:37
Interesting point made above about voting depending on whether you prefer the idea of grim futuristic sci-fi, or swords & sorcery.

However I don't think this is always the case. I am a massive fan of the 40k 'world', read alot of the Black Library books, and collect the models to paint.

However, I don't play the game and have not so for some time, and I think as a system it pales next to the background material written for it.

Fantasy on the other hand, has in my opinion got much more staying power. I don't really want to get into a murky discussion about a comparison of game mechanics, but alot of the 'veteran' players I play WFB week in week out, with games which rarely play out the same, whereas the opposite seems to apply for 40k.

Lordsaradain
09-04-2008, 16:41
I voted fantasy. Personally I thing knights, archers and brutal melee fights with swords and sheilds is much more appealing than a combination of future laserweapons and trench war fighting. I do have a 40k army, but I prefer fantasy, both ruleswise, and especially modelwise.

So, I'd start collecting the team/race/whatever that you think has the coolest looking miniatures.

mrtn
09-04-2008, 20:16
...So, I'd start collecting the team/race/whatever that you think has the cooles looking miniatures.
I wholeheartedly agree with this (apart from the spelling ;)).

Bob5000
09-04-2008, 22:30
If you want realism , I dont think Fantasy can be called realistic at all , Dragons , Magic , etc , though I do like the movement / combat system and the ranks of units which move as a block ( generally ) representing large formations of troops .

I can relate more to 40K , and its Sci-Fi universe .

I am not that keen on Magic in Fantasy , which to my sensibilities is far too dominant a factor in the game , some people like it though .

I vote 40K

Edit : Oh , try posting the same question in the 40K gen discussion forum for balance , be interesting to see if the balance goes the other way

The Anarchist
09-04-2008, 22:38
in my view 40 is slipping towards the younger end of the market, its still very enjoyable but being simplified. It requires a little less forethought amd little more balls before brains. so if your a gung-ho type go for 40K.

fantasy is becoming the more complicated game, though it does have very well thought out system so not too ahrd to learn. the game is less forgiving to begin with, though in my oppinion the best game when u master it. Fantasy also has some amazing models at the moment, with most armies getting updated on a cyclical basis, ratehr than the 40k constant re-making of space marnies. so if your the more dedicated and tactical player i would say go forth and kick fantasy ass!

overall this is jsut my oppinion, and so should be taken with a pinch of salt. hope it helps though :D

starlight
09-04-2008, 22:50
40K = beer and pizza on a good day, daycare for goblins on a bad day.

WFB = wine and cheese on a good day, beer and pizza on a bad day.

:p

PS - LotR = wine and cheese any day, getting better the more you play...

FurryMiguell
09-04-2008, 22:57
Go fantasy. They have all the cool stuff you used to dream about as a kid (or still have dreams about), magic, elves, swords, shiny heroes, beatiful maidens, massive armies and much more! And I agree with earlier said: Fantasy are chess and 40K are checkers:p. Tactics are a good thing, and being able to relax among other masterminds in a calm atmosphere is just great!

In 40k you got more of the shotemup feel, with 10-14 year old boys running around with their would-be armycuts and space marine forces. As your GW staff dude said, the 40k miniatures are easier to paint and the game is easier to learn, but once you get into the fatasy game you'd have much better times than playing 40k, or that is my experience anyway.

As you said, the movement phrase is much more tactical in fantasy, and the whole game gives a more realistic feel with its great set of rules. the 40k rules still needs a lot of work, and heavily lacks the amount of tactic involved in a fantasy game.

If you enjoy painting and converting, I think fantasy is also for you, as the miniatures can go from very simple to fantasticly detailed and impressive, and IMO the conversions professional modelers and painters make to their fantasy models goes far beond what I have seen in 40k. But then again, if you like painting huge, armour-claded men, go 40k!

About relism, I know all of us see tyranids and space orks on our way to school and work, and on our way to the store, you can be sure to find a group of Eldar rangers hanging around, not to mention the common tau infecting our streets!:p I rather enjoy the "unrealistic" setting in fatasy, with loads of mythologic creatures and races founded in true history of our day! Dont get me wrong, Im a great fan of 40k too, and love the sci-fi setting, but fantasy seems so much ebchanting, with trolls and mages, elves and dwarfs. It has everything (ok, they lack alien, but who cares! nobody likes them anyway;))

But in the end I think it is up to you, and which of the games you find most enthraling. Do you like sci-fi more, or is fantasy the way to go?

Vote me!

Cheers:D

WargamesEmpire
09-04-2008, 23:08
Another thing to take into consideration is the kind of people you like.

In my experience, Fantasy players tend to be more mature, older and more laid back.

On the other hand, 40K players tend to be loud, fiery and pre-teen! They also seem to complain a lot!

I say this from personal experience ;)

FurryMiguell
09-04-2008, 23:20
WargamesEmpire's got it all figgerd out;). And I totally agree, you are very right (and I also speak form experience)

Cheers:D

Johnnyfrej
09-04-2008, 23:35
I voted 40k, but that is my opinion because I have been playing it for 2 years longer than Fantasy.

In my experience 40k games tend to be a lot more enjoyable. You can usually count on an engaging game with laughs and amusing situations (Guardsmen killing Terminators :D). In Fantasy the game is all about winning and/or showing off. Aside from a few people, most Fantasy players I know get really prissy when they start to lose or when people start to watch them and make comments.

Also there is the insufferable sense of superiority that Fantasy players have about 40k. The whole "Chess vs Checkers" argument is completely moot. To me having a Fantasy army moving across the board in a usual straight line (its not called a "Bowling Ball" game for nothing) with the occasional skirmishers/warmachines/cavalry doing something.

To the OP, play whatever you feel like spending hundreds of hours and money on making an army off. I suggest if you still can't decide then to borrow an army of each system and play against some people. GW stores usually have their own display armies and will let you use them.

Whatever you choose, good luck to ya.

Pyroprep
09-04-2008, 23:42
The easiest way to choose is what has better support where you're at. I currently play 40k because at my LGS it's better supported with 2 weekly leagues and loads of tournies and apoc games, where-as Fantasy has 4 people that sometimes come on Saturdays sometime between 6 and 10pm

rodmillard
10-04-2008, 01:26
I hardly ever play 40K nowadays. my friends tell me its because I have "grown up" as a gamer.

To be fair, they're right - fantasy is the more grown up game. and by that I mean not only that it-has-been-around-longer, but also that it-takes-years-to-master and that the-average-age-of-your-opponent-is-greater-than-your-shoe-size.

My advice would be to start with 40K and Lord Of The Rings - they both support (and in the latter case favour) small forces, then when you know your play style and have an idea of where you want to go, move into WFB. building a fantasy army takes time, money and dedication. don't start on it before you're sure that's what you want.

Putty
10-04-2008, 04:26
depends.

u like fast games or slow games?

fast games = 40k
slow games = fantasy

u like painting rank & file?

= fantasy

you like laser guns that shoot 48 inches or do you prefer crossbows that shoot 24"?

laser guns = 48"
crossbows = 24"

and i think this last qns is quite impt...

do you prefer Lord of the Rings (aka D&D) or Star Wars?

LotR = Fantasy
Star Wars = 40K

Lord_Ribbit
10-04-2008, 04:49
I am one of the many people who use to play 40k, but have been converted into Fantasy fanatics. Its just a better game.

I vote Fantasy.

- Lord Ribbit -

kroq'gar
10-04-2008, 04:54
All players eventually drift to fantasy due to the wealth of tactics available.

40k has a large fan base amongst the players who collect one of two armies, dont really learn to play that well and then drift out of the tabletop gaming area. That said, its simplified rules make it a much easier came for a casual person to pick up and play.

Warhammer fantasy on the other hand- a good general can completely outclass a poor one, even were both players to an identical army (something that cannot really be said of 40k)

lokigod
10-04-2008, 04:58
hmm I'm going to be a rebel here and say get a small army of both :) I started 40k and got bored (bad army selection), and then picked up daemons in fantasy and never looked back! Although lately I have matured and the fantasy guys where I live are all about winning. Now don’t get me wrong I hold my own and usually win most of my games I just want to play for fun now..... The tournament scene is way overrated....... so I'am now building a nurgle 40k army for fun :)

Luisjoey
10-04-2008, 06:55
Play for flavor not per game...

in the end you could play both games :D

TheSanityAssassin
10-04-2008, 08:22
Hmm, that is true. 40k does have a far simpler time getting into gaming with the models you have. 500 pt 40k games I've seen run FAR nicer than 500 pt fantasy games, unless you get into Warbands rules.

FurryMiguell
10-04-2008, 11:12
I just noticed that most of the relpies say that fantasy is the more enjoyable game, and 40k is the competative game. and then some say it the other way around. I guess this depends on the area you game in, but I think that 40k generaly is a much more stressed and competative game than fantasy.

About amusing moments, guardsmen killing termies is only half as fun as seening goblins slay a dragon!

Cheers:D

Bleakwood
10-04-2008, 11:24
You ask this in the Fantasy forum and expect WHAT to happen? I seen this a million times; ain't gonna BE no surprises.

Ronin_eX
10-04-2008, 11:53
Well I have been a 40k player for the past 12 years or so I have loads of stuff for it and I've played through three of the four editions. That said I have only ever really enjoyed one of those editions and at this point have moved back to playing it exclusively (2nd Edition 40k, Fantasy and it have a lot in common).

I have recently looked into getting into WHFB and though I am not usually one to go in for fantasy (especially not very Tolkienesqe settings, but I digress) I have to say that something about the slightly dark (but not oppressively as in current editions of 40k) nature of the setting has started to draw me in.

As far as the tactical/strategic game goes I find a lot more of it in Fantasy. The main reason for this is that the Fantasy system seems to actually be somewhat intuitive and as such the basics of the tactics in play are easy to see from a cursory read of the rules but their mastery proves difficult and challenging and learning the ins and outs of your army allows you to better learn how to use the synergy of the various game systems together. There is a strong interplay between movement, combat resolution & morale/psychology that makes for an incredibly varied and interesting range of tactical options. The more in depth movement system helps with this and really helps to emulate the genre the game is trying to convey.

Current editions of 40k on the other hand (and I have certainly played a lot of games of them) feel a lot more flat on this front though. The main thing is that none of the rules seem to synergize gracefully and the rules lack any kind of intuitive basis. For the most part when I see new players pick it up they are less fighting their opponents and more fighting the rules themselves as they grapple with trying to find some kind of core tactical principle to dwell on. Only after a few games when you have learned the rules do you finally get to start playing but I find that once they get there the depth is no where to be seen and the game ends up feeling rather flat. It actually seems to have a steep learning curve but once you get it it simply plateaus and the only real challenge ends up coming from list building better than your opponent. The game certainly has tactics but the game doesn't seem to reward the more cunning player, it simply rewards the player that knows the rules better than his opponents.

So from a gameplay standpoint I would choose Fantasy at this point as its system is much better refined (it is in its 7th edition afterall) and it isn't suffering from poor design choices such as "remove systems that remind people of Fantasy as we don't want them to be the same" (which seems the only reason for some design choices in 40k). If you want a good sci-fi game then go for one of the better ones out there right now (Anything from Epic to Urban War would be a better choice, gameplay wise, than 40k right now).

Now from the point of view of background, aesthetics and other things like that it is really a tossup. I love the look of both games at this point and the backgrounds of both are fairly deep and gripping that draw from a lot of very cool inspiration. The main reason I stuck with 40k for so long was its background and aesthetics and now that I can play it with a better skirmish system I'm getting a lot more use out of all those minis. But as someone who has been with one for a long time and has gotten a first look at the other I will say that I'd actually rank WHFB as a fairly good system even amongst the other non-GW games I play as it emulates its genre very well and its core tactic is easy to pick up but difficult to master. 40k on the other hand currently has a very poorly written and designed system that doesn't really emulate gothic techno sci-fi very well and has a fairly unintuitive core game that doesn't seem to provide implicit fun or challenge (i.e. it is fun in a social sense but replace 40k with drinking beer or any other social activity and the results would be much the same).

So as a long time 40k player and a lover of its background and style... Go with Fantasy, it has aged much better than 40k.

DonKarst0n
10-04-2008, 11:56
You are asking whether to play 40k or fantasy in the fantasy forums?
What do you expect?

Both systems are great.

Tee
10-04-2008, 18:48
Both systems are great wargames!

I think the choice comes from the theme/flavor/style of the battles you enjoy more.

Do you want to experience ancient/medieval style battles (pick Fantasy) or do you like modern warfare (go for 40k)?

Pacific
10-04-2008, 19:27
Quite funny seeing the ardent 40k fans posting their disaproval here ^^

Personally, I would go with the opinion that has been stated above, perhaps try a couple of games with each system. Then discover you prefer Blood Bowl :)

W0lf
10-04-2008, 20:46
Fantasy everytime.

Fantasy is chess, 40k is checkers.

Fantasy is 40K with:
- A movement phase thats not 360 and you have to think about cleverly.
- A charging system that require experience and skill.
- Modifiers to hit and armour save modifiers.
- Psychology that can win or lose games. (and counts)
- Heros that matter.
- a whole extra phase - magic.
- combat res system that helps balance the horde vs elite.
- A combat system where units break.
- Guess range weapons.
- Miscasts and misfires.


Oh and i challenge the '40 = fast' mentality. Units in fantasy often win/lose in the 1st round and a unit of chosen knights hitting 40 goblins, beating and cutting them down is pretty fast paced if you ask me. As is 100 clan rats fleeing in terror from a dragon.

I played 40k for 6 years then started fantasy. 40K has never been the same and i cant play it without thinking how better fantasy is.

vinush
10-04-2008, 21:05
Apples and oranges my friend.

40k can be tactical, but only if you use missions. Fantasy will always be tactical, and is a much more rewarding game to play, in my opinion.

\/ince.

DonKarst0n
10-04-2008, 21:11
Quite funny seeing the ardent 40k fans posting their disaproval here ^^

Personally, I would go with the opinion that has been stated above, perhaps try a couple of games with each system. Then discover you prefer Blood Bowl :)

I play Bretonnians and IG my friend. ;)

Donblas
10-04-2008, 21:24
Both games take thought to play fantasy is all about pre-game thought, I have learned that set up is everything for fantasy, while 40k is more spur of the moment, since you can react to things faster then fantasy,. 40k is easier to learn with while fantasy can get a bit complicated with its rules. 40k's units tend to stay in combat while fantasy units run like children at the first site of something bigger and nastier. Fantasy however has the cooler models and I am actually painting my fantasy army.
I would go with play both if you can cause neither is better nor worse then the other. Its all based on what you like to do not what others like so try both find the one that follows your play style and play it. Plus try to stay away from the my game is better then your game mentality. They are games they are for fun and what it fun for one is torture for another.

Tee
10-04-2008, 21:24
Fantasy is 40K with:

- A movement phase thats not 360 and you have to think about cleverly.
Having more choices, it means more possibilities to solve a tactical situation.


- A charging system that require experience and skill.
Experience and good eye measuring skills, but not tactical skills.


- Modifiers to hit and armour save modifiers.
Different theme (medieval vs modern warfare), different system.


- Psychology that can win or lose games. (and counts)
Too bad, in the end all armies have countless options to make their units LD9/10 / imune to psychology/ stuborn /etc


- Heros that matter.
More heroes, less units to play with.


- a whole extra phase - magic.
More magic, less units to maneuver/fight in combat with them.


- combat res system that helps balance the horde vs elite.
Too bad, 90% of combat end after 1st (first) round of combat. Only by adding stubborn units (like GW did with last lists) they succeed having longer combat phases between 2 units.


- A combat system where units break.
Breaks too often.. sadly!


- Guess range weapons.
Not tactical, just funny.


- Miscasts and misfires.

More random.

I'm not claiming Fantasy or 40k is better. I'm just pointing that some of your arguments my not be necessarily something good/cool/interesting for everyone else.

FurryMiguell
10-04-2008, 21:27
Not to judge anybody, but when someone say that 40k is a more tacticaly rewading and more relaxed game to play then fantasy, I dont think they have played a lot of fantasy, if any at all. I think we can all agree that fantasy is the more tactical game, or as has been said, chess. And that makes 40k checkers:p. We all know checkers has a much more copmpetetive bunch of players than chess (not really) and chess has a lot more tactics included in it (really).

To top that; in 40k, the sci-fi game, you dont get to paint small green men, but in fantasy you do! (goblins my friends, awsome green gobbos!)

Cheers:D

@Tee:
EDIT: ok, didnt notice your post Tee, but after seeing how you countered W0lf's very good points, I guess you just confirm my theory. players that say 40k is more tactical than fantasy has not got any experience with fantasy, not enough to build oppinions on anyway. Or they just got really bad experiences with the game (maybe you played some really bad sports in your first few games). This is nothing personal, please dont hate me...

t-o-l-o
10-04-2008, 21:32
Fantasy....more exciting and every game is different - i find that 40K can get some what repetitive (move fire).

Fantasy takes more tactical thinking and makes for a better game experience.

Makaber
10-04-2008, 21:40
I think Warhammer 40k has the better setting and the most unique and vivid imagery, but Warhammer Fantasy Battles is by far the superior game system. 40k is based on core mechanics borrowed from Fantasy originally, and in the transition from a regiment-block based game, to a looser, less abstract skirmish-based one, a couple of glaring game mechanic issues occured that they've yet to solve. These largely ruins the experience for me.

As we say at around here, "we read 40k novels, but we play fantasy".



@Tee:
EDIT: ok, didnt notice your post Tee, but after seeing how you countered W0lf's very good points, I guess you just confirm my theory. players that say 40k is more tactical than fantasy has not got any experience with fantasy, not enough to build oppinions on anyway. Or they just got really bad experiences with the game (maybe you played some really bad sports in your first few games). This is nothing personal, please dont hate me...

Oh, and I agree with this.

LiMunPai
10-04-2008, 22:03
40k is more forgiving for strategic mishaps, but that also makes it forgiving for bad dice rolls. A great fantasy player can still fail one psychology roll after another, or get rubber lance syndrome, but in 40k that doesn't happen as much, especially since you roll quite a few more dice in 40k and the law of averages and whatnot.

Also, if something does go wrong in 40k, the structure of the game allows you to make up for it and adjust your tactics, while Fantasy tends to be much less flexible.

With the addition of miscasts and misfires in Fantasy, the randomness of the game is much higher than that of 40k, and a great 40k player will always beat a bad one, because they can adjust to a game of evasion and point denial easier if rolls are going bad for them.

However; I find Fantasy to be more fun in general, because you don't know what's going to happen. Rolling so few dice in a combat means that goblins can beat dragons if the dragon whiffs, so you get to play out every combat with the excitement of not knowing, whereas 40k is more deterministic: The Daemon Prince will always (almost) slaughter the squad of guardsmen.

I vote for Fantasy because I support Ronin_eX's view that the fantasy system is just more fleshed out than the 40k system, and getting into rules debates or trying to find rules nuance to exploit is no fun compared to the broad sweeping, easy to understand strategy of fantasy.

Also, the chess/checkers argument would be a good one, but both of those games are completely deterministic, rather than having random elements, so that if you throw in dice rolls, who knows which game would have greater strategic elements, though chess with dice rolls to resolve combats would be really complicated, and probably really fun, dunno

Lordsaradain
10-04-2008, 22:15
40k is more forgiving for strategic mishaps, but that also makes it forgiving for bad dice rolls. A great fantasy player can still fail one psychology roll after another, or get rubber lance syndrome, but in 40k that doesn't happen as much, especially since you roll quite a few more dice in 40k and the law of averages and whatnot.

Also, if something does go wrong in 40k, the structure of the game allows you to make up for it and adjust your tactics, while Fantasy tends to be much less flexible.

With the addition of miscasts and misfires in Fantasy, the randomness of the game is much higher than that of 40k, and a great 40k player will always beat a bad one, because they can adjust to a game of evasion and point denial easier if rolls are going bad for them.

Does the word TANKs mean anything to you? A land raider can get knocked out the 1st turn by a lucky shot, but the land raider can also last the entire fight, surviving countless shots. TANKS are entierly random. Fantasy does ot have this problem, because in fanatsy, big things have lottsa wounds, meaning that you cant kill a fantasy "tank" with just ONE lucky shot.


I think Warhammer 40k has the better setting and the most unique and vivid imagery, but Warhammer Fantasy Battles is by far the superior game system. 40k is based on core mechanics borrowed from Fantasy originally, and in the transition from a regiment-block based game, to a looser, less abstract skirmish-based one, a couple of glaring game mechanic issues occured that they've yet to solve. These largely ruins the experience for me.

As we say at around here, "we read 40k novels, but we play fantasy".


Gotta agree here, I read 40k, play fantasy.

Johnnyfrej
10-04-2008, 22:19
Ugh. Here we go again with the usual Fantasy=Chess argument. Alright, I'll bite.

Not to judge anybody, but when someone say that 40k is a more tacticaly rewading and more relaxed game to play then fantasy, I dont think they have played a lot of fantasy, if any at all.
Exactly how many years of 40k have you played that allows you to judge 40k as inferior than fantasy?


I think we can all agree that fantasy is the more tactical game, or as has been said, chess. And that makes 40k checkers:p. We all know checkers has a much more copmpetetive bunch of players than chess (not really) and chess has a lot more tactics included in it (really).
Actually I would call Fantasy Chess, and 40k Xiangqi (look it up). Both games are similar in pricipal, but not even close in execution. I believe an educated gentlemen named Vinush described it earlier as "Apples and Oranges."


To top that; in 40k, the sci-fi game, you dont get to paint small green men, but in fantasy you do! (goblins my friends, awsome green gobbos!)

Ever 'ere of dem ork boyz? Dey gotz dese boyz called grotz. Dese small 'an green.



I would go with play both if you can cause neither is better nor worse then the other. Its all based on what you like to do not what others like so try both find the one that follows your play style and play it. Plus try to stay away from the my game is better then your game mentality. They are games they are for fun and what it fun for one is torture for another.
Excellant words Donblas. Play what you want to play because you enjoy it, not because biased fanatics will tell you a hundred(questionable) reasons why not to.


To the OP. Are you still deciding, haven't read this yet or just made it to cause a firestorm?

Kaihlik
10-04-2008, 22:54
Some things that I see in this post bug me as they do in every post about Fantasy vs 40K. Now I play both systems and although I started with 40K my fantasy army is bigger. What I get fed up with seeing is the elitism of Fasntasy players who tend to disregard 40K players as immature. In my opinion Fantasy is becoming less tactical with increasing power creep. Each army seems to have devistating units that smash everything aside like blood knights from the new Vampire book. There is a unit that on the charge is so powerful that the chances of it not winning a fight are tiny.

Where I live there is almost no pure fantasy players, most people play both systems (and LoTR if we feel like it) and nobody has arguments about this sort of thing, you play what you like. We have a 40K campaign running at the moment so everyone is playing 40K and when that is wrapped up the guy running it is going to run a fantasy one when we will all play fantasy. To the OP I would say find out where you can play games and what people play. If anyone has a stuck up, superior attitude about their system then don't play them.

I prefer the 40K background to Fantasy but they both have their detractors. Read some backround material on races you are considering and think up some themes and see if any of them grab you. I am starting a Mechinised Storm Trooper army for IG just because I like the theme (will be crap on the TT).

I dont think I have really made a point but I just get annoyed about things like the checkers and chess argument annoy me soo much that I felt like complainging. The games are as tactical as you make them, have fun playing.

FurryMiguell
10-04-2008, 23:13
@Jonnyfrej: Well, tecnically you can have an entire army of just grots, so dei'z dosnt count! I respect your views and opinions in every way and your right to say them, but feel the urge to defend myself:p. I have been a 40k player for just as long as Ive been a fantasy player, so Im pretty equal on both sides. Yes, the games are nothing similar in execution, and thats what I mean. Im sure Vinush is highly edicated and a gentleman, and I agree with you that his way to describe it is very fair, but in the end I still see fantasy as a more tactical game than 40k. Well, we can crash heads all night, and it wont help the OP. And Im not trying to make enemies here, just state my meanings;)

@Kaihlik: I agree with you. Units like the bloodknights from the new VC book combined with a vampire lord is unstopable! Many races in fantasy has one or two of these super-units, and I see them as a huge mistake on GW's part. I disagree with prefering the 40k background, I LOVE the fantasy fluff:p. Well, thats difrent from person to person

In the end I find it hard to just pick a game bacause I play them both, are as experienced with both, and I like them both! I feel more atracted to the fantasy world though, as I have always liked magic and great battles with ranked units. The battlefield of the 41st millenium is not for me (unless I get to walk around in a huge powersuit and blow xenos appart with my bolter!)

FINALLY!: It is natural for humans to defend something or someone the love (or care for or about), so naturaly the players the like fantasy bettert will defend fantasy and therfore attack 40k when they feel, uh, threathend? and 40k players will do the same with their favouritte game. Only natural, hope we can all be friends and enjoy our ups and downs in this forum!

OP, do as Kaihlik say, go to your local gaming club and find out what most of them play there, and if they are a highly competetive bunch or not. that way you'll find out whats right for you. But if it is an option, Id go both!

Cheers:D

destroyerlord
11-04-2008, 13:01
In my opinion fantasy is a superior game. Sure, 40k has great backstory/fluff whatever you want to call it, but when it comes down to it fantasy really has the edge. The games are decided more by how you play than how many anti-tank weapons you have or how well you can kill marines (two of the most important abilities for an army in 40k). I have played both games and own around 2k of each, and 40k was just never as fun for me.
Just remember, once you have a usable army together, you can always branch out and collect a second army for the other game.

FurryMiguell
11-04-2008, 14:58
Ok, so I have one more thing to say. When deciding what game system is the better, you have to take into count that the fantasy rules has had a much more work than the 40k game. Meaning the fatasy game has been way better able to adjust for the best possible rules (so far...). 40k rules still needs a lot of work (fantasy does too, but not as much), so I dont think anything can be said else than the fantasy game being a more "whole" game, while 40k, though being a great game, still has a few major holes in the rules that needs to be fixed.

Cheers:D

superduperkoopatrooper
11-04-2008, 15:09
[QUOTE=Lordmonkey;2507861]The results of the poll are going to be very biased, since you've posted in the Fantasy boards :p[QUOTE]

Sorry! I didn't know where else to put it (I couldn't see a "General Talk-About-Anything-Here Forum!)

You could have posted it in general GW discussion, then again, the answer you'd have got would be to play neither :rolleyes:

superduperkoopatrooper
11-04-2008, 15:10
If you want realism , I dont think Fantasy can be called realistic at all , Dragons , Magic , etc , though I do like the movement / combat system and the ranks of units which move as a block ( generally ) representing large formations of troops .

I can relate more to 40K , and its Sci-Fi universe .



So which planet do you come from then? :p

Edit: I should probably say something OT, erm, like most people have been saying - fantasy is a better game, 40k has a more interesting background. Both have cool models.

kroq'gar
12-04-2008, 00:37
Agree with the earlier poster- 2nd ed 40k was good, its got progressively 'dumbed down' since to (alarmingly) cater to the young Space marine players out there.

When choosing to play 40k, remember. At least half your battles will be against the one army tailored by GW to be easy to win with.

KeeganKatastrofee
12-04-2008, 00:43
If i had to pick which one to bring with me to Games Day, Fantasy all the way.

However, both are good games if you make it.
I'm partial to 40K in some cases because it's much more mindless killing of things. Alot of fun for a quick game with friends

Pacific
12-04-2008, 10:56
I find I play on average 1 or 2 games of 40k every six months. I'll get all excited after reading a BL novel, a new codex, or perhaps after the release of some new models.

Then I'll play the game and it will be a woeful anti-climax, because IMO the system just doesnt cut the mustard. Tee, I think your post actually served to draw attention to what makes WFB a more complete system. Many of the things you mentioned, such as save modifiers, used to be in 40k along with many other cool and satisfying things such as throwing grenades, cover that actually has a function for troops with armour, and jumping out of speeding vehicles amongst many other things I could mention. All crushed by the GW's giant purple rubber mallet named 'Simplification', trying to pull in more players who might otherwise be put-off by the complexity of rules.

I still enjoy games of 40k occassionally, but I think perhaps thats a result of special objectives, and the overall quality of the systems models and background. I enjoy these games though, despite the rules system rather than because of it. In any case, after playing previous versions I feel like I have a hand tied behind my back and always feel inadequate at the table top :).

If I was to be completely honest, the most fun I have had with 40k is playing special scenarios, things other than 'meat grinder' style games, where my attention gets drawn to some kind of plot. I think perhaps the most amusing aside to this is how well 40k works in apocalypse size games, personally I used to prefer playing that kind of game in Epic 5mm (and this is proof of how the games system has been peeled down that these kinds of games are possible), but then I guess that wouldnt involve buying 300+ worth of models to make a single army!

Spleendokta
12-04-2008, 14:04
I agree with everyone. 40k is for the peasants.

Johnnyfrej
12-04-2008, 14:35
I agree with everyone. 40k is for the peasants.
Yes, it does seem you sum up the Fantasy player's argument quite nicely ;).
^edit^: Sarcastic comment, was ment to insult the "I play Fantasy so 40k is for teh nubz" argument.

Dr. Acula
12-04-2008, 15:53
If I had to choose one then I would say probably Fantasy. I find that my armies have much more variation in them than my 40k armies and my opponants have more interesting armies to play against. However, I like the fact that in 40k I can field a small army of Grey Knights and be done with the painting nice and quickly (never been a fan of that side of the hobby).

Panzerkanzler
12-04-2008, 16:32
I agree with everyone. 40k is for the peasants.

Funny :D
I'm playing 40k at the moment, Tau, but I'm going to get a daemon army soon. With some use of very small magnets I'll manage to have the mini's bases interchangable between the square and round ones. And to the OP...you should pick the army that has the most players where you live. A fun game will become quite booring really fast if you don't have a fair number of different people to play with.

isidril93
12-04-2008, 18:53
Fantasy...i prefer things like lord of the rings a lot more than star wars

the whole elves vs orcsis much more appealing than space marine vs chaos marine (ant there are too many marines out there)

Davien
13-04-2008, 00:26
I have decided to go with Warhammer.

The models seem to look cooler, I have always liked fantasy settings, and I am more of a thinker than a gung-ho git. 40K just doesn't seem to have the combo/tactics kind of atmosphere I'm looking for. As for gaming purposes, I have a local club (they meet once a month) but since I haven't actually been yet I don't know what system is more supported.

For you people who are saying "What did you expect from a Warhammer Forum???" I say: I was already favouring Warhammer, particularly with the new rules set.

Now I just need to decide on the army... :cries::cries::cries:

Thorgrim Brokenfoot
13-04-2008, 07:12
Good to hear that u have decided for warhammer, but one thing does not rule out an other.

I have dwarfs (around 2000 pts)
Tomb Kings (around 4000 pts)
and Imperial guards (around 2000 pts)
I am also going to start with lizardmen :D (and i have around 300 pts already there)

My recomandation for an army is... whatever you see fit, but i must say, i like lizarmen and scaven in particular. I like the ways you can paint them and they have cool figures. Skaven also has a lot of cool inventions like the rattling gun

FurryMiguell
13-04-2008, 10:48
@Thorgrim Brokenfoot: "skaven", ol' mate, is with a "K" not a "c":p. I just love correcting you.

OP: Great chose. Though the rules might be harder to learn, I think you'll have much better gaming experiences. Also, I totally agree, fantasy models rock! For army, the armies Ive had most fun with are my WIP pure Goblin Wolfriders army. many great moments. Goblin armies are always fun, and Night Goblins are THE army to play, if not my beloved wolfriders;). The Bretonnians are really REALLY cool, but not as many obvious conversion-posibilities. I think the new HE must be a great place to start out too, with a nice new set of rules, and some awsome cool new minis.

What ever you do, follow your heart! (which leads to the forces of Chaos and the daemon good Slaanesh!)

Cheers:D

Lordsaradain
13-04-2008, 11:24
Now I just need to decide on the army... :cries::cries::cries:

Thats simple! Just go for the race with the best looking models. If there are several armies and you cant decide which, I'd go for the one with the most plastic sets, as it will be a cheaper and easier army to collect.
Dark elves for example have a great looking miniature range, but nearly everything is metal, so i wouldnt recommend it as a beginner's army.
If you still cant decide, maybe you should favour an army that is not so much a horde army, so you will have fewer models to build/paint, meaning you can get your army done quicker.

Panzerkanzler
13-04-2008, 13:00
Now I just need to decide on the army... :cries::cries::cries:

That made me laugh for 18 hours straight and poop my pants. Deciding on army is pure torture my friend, there are so many pretty minis out there! :D

Johnnyfrej
13-04-2008, 17:26
I have decided to go with Warhammer.

The models seem to look cooler, I have always liked fantasy settings, and I am more of a thinker than a gung-ho git.

Now I just need to decide on the army... :cries::cries::cries:
Congrats on choosing something, though you could have declared so with more... civility.
If you still don't want to be a "gung-ho git" and need to choose a Fantasy army you have already limited you choices (if you want an effective list).
No Skaven, either a horde of slaves/clan rats or a gunline.
No Dwarf, either wait for the enemy to come to you or a gunline.
No Empire, either wait for the enemy to come to you or a gunline.
No Wood Elfs, basically a 40k army and so you would be a git.
No Chaos, basically charge everything forward or all magic(so dice chugging magic tests basically)
No Bretonnians, basically only charge forward.
No Orges, basically only charge foward.
No Orcs and Goblins, basically move everything forward.
No High Elves, either a character heavy list or a magic heavy list.
No Vampire Counts, either a character heavy list, a horde list or a magic heavy list.
No Tomb Kings, only effective with massive points into magic.

So basically if you want an effective army in Fantasy that requires thinking your choices are Lizardmen or Dark Elves.

vinush
13-04-2008, 18:24
I have to disagree Johny, Empire can be a very tactical army to play which requires lots of thought and forward planning. You can take the fight to the enemy without the need to have a gunline.

And the new edition of high elves draws you away from character heavy armies, and you can go magic light with them too.

\/ince.

FurryMiguell
13-04-2008, 19:43
I dissagree with Johny all the way, in everything he said in that post.

I can sum up 40k even easier anyway:p (if thats what we're trying to do...)

All 40k army: gunline or charge right in...

And to counter you, warhammer is not basical...

Good luck on chosing army OP!

Cheers:D

brambleten
13-04-2008, 20:16
if you are struggling to make up your mind buy a small box of guys from a couple you are interested in/have the best minis iyo, and see how they are to paint. either that or get the army books and have a good read. i personally go for whatever seems new and shiny, although this doesnt work for everyone. i will not be drawn into the 40k/fantasy debate, as own 2 legal armies for both (well, 3 for 40k if i use my chaos as DAs). another way of choosing is comparing yourself to an army. are you sneaky? go for skaven. do you like beer and gold? go for dwarves. are you a proud, honorable person? go for Brets etc etc

hope that helps

Thorgrim Brokenfoot
13-04-2008, 20:28
I just have to say it, Jhonnyfrej... I will make a grudge against you for declearing that dwarfes are not effective. This calls for a fight to the death to settle this grudge :D

Okay... i just mean, i dissagree with you all the way. Tomb Kings goes well without any magic at all. Belive me, i have tried many times.
But, atleast you made up for that in good taste about lizzardmen to be some of the good armies... But honestly...
"No Skaven, either a horde of slaves/clan rats or a gunline." Have you EVER tried to face a scaven gunline? By the time you reach it, half of the gunline has blown themselves up and the other half you have shot down on your way forward... = automaticly victory

Well, i still think skaven or Lizzardmen are good armies... but also chaos... all ends in glorious chaos!... Papa nurgle will get you in the end... :evilgrin: